Good Men

So, yesterday was a fun day.  Actually it was a fun day in many ways and an unusual too.  I got to meet a fan who is a friend of a friend and discovered she really is a “relative I’d never met before.”  In the evening we hit Jeff Duntemann’s party very, very late, and kept the poor man up till all hours (we’re sorry!)

In between there was coming home to a spate of messages from you nuts asking if I was okay, because you heard about a shooting in downtown Colorado Springs and you have a vague idea I live there.

Okay, first trust the media.  While the shooting was central-ish it was in an area I’d never have dreamed of walking in alone.  With the guys, sometimes, but even then not often. Five (?) years ago a guy was shot in his car outside the Wendy’s a couple of blocks away.

Second: three people does not a spree shooting make.  Until more information I’ll assume it was people the murderer knew.  (Though suicide-by-cop is not out of the question.)

But I ended up also being got out of bed at an unholy hour by dad, who heard about it in Portugal.

I was testy before.

Before I went to bed yesterday I found the poo flinging monkeys at Vile 770 were merrily scaring themselves with Straw Sarah.  I don’t blame them.  That chick is a jerk.

BUT what relationship straw Sarah has with me, is quite beyond my ken.

To begin with they laid question to my ethnicity.  Which is amusing.  They said most Portuguese will slug you if you call them Hispanic.  True that.  I almost did when the Social Security worker tried to put that on my form.  HOWEVER I don’t claim to be Hispanic.  The federal government sometimes call me that (it varies wildly and gets into the nitty gritty of various programs and institutions).  The Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo is considered a Latino/Hispanic Justice, even though he was of Portuguese ancestry. And the house Hispanic caucus includes Portuguese.  (For that matter Portuguese even in Portugal call themselves Latin, too.) They don’t like it?  Take it up with Uncle Sam. Take it up with the Europeans who frankly really don’t want any part of Portugal.  For years I fought to have me — and the kids — listed as Human, but they wouldn’t accept that.  (Possibly because older son looks like a Neanderthal.)  Not my circus, not my monkeys.  Race and culture are not that important to me now.  I’m an American by choice. That is my people.  However when you call me a White Mormon Male I’m going to get a little testy.

What really concerned me is that Straw Sarah is APPARENTLY a Salazar supporter.  You know, because they heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend that I once said something sympathetic about the regime before the revolution of 75.

First of all I’d like to register that Straw Sarah MUST be older than I.  This probably comes from the Luhrid One’s brilliant insight that I’d “run to the US to escape the revolution.”  When you consider I was about six when Salazar died ( I THINK I was around six because I have a vague memory of talk about how he had been dead and “in a freezer somewhere” for months, around the time I entered school.  And that talk was from my family, who, obviously loved and trusted Big Brother– I mean the government.  I don’t have time/interest to look up his date of death.)  And the revolution happened right after I turned 11.  So if Straw Sarah ran to the US to escape it, she MUST have been either at least 20 (I mean, I’m assuming like me she came to the US after getting married?) or Muslim, which is the only major religion that allows for marriage at that age.

In fact, the revolution in Portugal, which they would know if they weren’t historically illiterate, was not against Salazar, but against his successor who was trying in a ham-fisted way to be the Gorbachev of Portugal.  I.e., he was trying to liberalize.  Which they’d also understand — if they weren’t historically illiterate — is when revolutions happen.  They don’t actually happen against horrible tyranny but against “tyranny going soft.”

BUT none of this resolves the puzzle of Straw Sarah’s existence and why she must have these weird beliefs.  Yeah, I grew up in infighting among socialist and communist factions, and being myself I hated them with the fire of a thousand suns.  But what part of that means I approved of the previous regime?  I mean, I think the French Revolution was an insane waste of life, resources and minds, and scary as hell, and led to Napoleon (more on that later) but must it follow I approved of the ancien regime, which was dictatorial and crazy and capricious, as well as economically outdated and harmful?  (All of these apply to Portugal before the 75 revolution, too, btw.)

I figure part of the confusion was seeded by — at some time — my having referred to Salazar as what Roosevelt would have been without the constitution restraining him.  I forgot the left considers Roosevelt a good guy and laudable, and they forgot I don’t.  Right.  But the fact is he actually was a lot like Roosevelt, in both style (anti-bankers, greed, looking out for the little people — all this were part of his rhetoric) beliefs (racial and national purity.  Yeah, people who consider Portuguese a separate race worry me) and the idea of socialism and social engineering as a positive good.  This was, mind you, because they were both men of their time.  Salazar just got to have his way because he took over after a period of anarchy and Portugal is not the US and their freedoms had no defense.  That’s about it. He instituted single-payer health and Social Security in Portugal and I actually remember finding one of mom’s books that said that the government would take care of “the little children of the poor from cradle to grave.”

The resulting regime was crazy-cakes economically (Foreign corporations were banned and Coca Cola was the stuff of the devil) made everyone incredibly poor, and was relatively repressive, in a way that’s uniquely Latin.  You could be thrown in jail if you were a foreigner and said “F*ck Portugal” in public.

There were also laws on pornography which can only be found in Arab countries.  All the awkward covers changed to cover up a woman mildly disrobed in the original American cover?  Yep, that.  Also because Salazar was raised by Jesuits, the country was aggressively, firmly Catholic.  (Some of those laws remained after the revolution.  Dad had to go through heck to get me removed from religious education which was mandatory in the high school.)

The country was ALSO anti-communist.  (So, you see, there was some good in the regime. 😉 ) This is about the equivalent of saying “I hear Hitler was nice to his mommy” but not quite, since the anti-communist policies kept Portugal from being swallowed up by Franco’s Spain.  That’s fine.

For those like the other side not fully up on history, unlike Spain Portugal sat WWII out.  I’m informed this makes Portugal an axis ally, unlike the Sainted Swedes.  Whatever.  Again, this kept Portugal from being swallowed by Spain, which for most of its existence was its raison d’etre, kind of like Canada’s reason for existence is “We’re not American, eh!”

Also a minor correction, there were elections in Portugal before the revolution.  They were the single party and the loyal opposition.  So your options ran through two parties and from National Socialist to National Social Democrat.  Right now, there, they run from Social Democrat to Crazy Cakes Ecological Communist, so as you see, the difference is vast, and things are much freer.

Things are freer, in a way — were after the revolution — for instance, you could have all the porn you wanted.  And you no longer had to be a good Catholic.  OTOH well…  Let’s just say when my nephews had to bathe on arrival to school and wear their hair a certain length it was bullsh*t no American would put up with.

In between there was the time you would get more jail for tearing down communist posters than for drug trafficking.  (Of course I did tear the posters down.  I came home from school with the scraps stuffed in my bag.  Mom would sigh and make the evidence disappear.)  The times when the headquarters of all political parties to the right of socialist were firebombed.  And the time they tried to house arrest PROMINENT SOCIALISTS, which is the origin of my “facing down the machine guns” story.  We were demonstrating in favor of the socialists to prevent the communists (Maoists, actually.  What a bag of crazy) from taking full control.

Different ideas of freedom over there, I guess.

The thing that annoyed me about this idiocy, at first, was that the Good Men Regime is in fact based on the regime of Salazar and others like his throughout the world at that time: the paternalistic, man-on-a-white-horse regimes that “will look after you.”  There are communists in that world, but they’re a weird quasi-religious sect, not the main bad guys.  And I’m fairly sure even the Vile 666 inhabitants would get that if they read the f*cking books.  (Okay, their mommies might need to sound out the hard words.)

You see, Salazar (and before him Napoleon, and right now Putin) came to power after a period of instability and cultural humiliation.  And he came promising one thing: stability.

He was, btw, an economist.  I never checked mom’s and grandma’s stories that the country had gone bankrupt TWICE before he took over, but it makes sense that in those circumstances the man on the white horse would be an economist.  AFAICT he was the least imposing of men, and could have been a weaponized Pajamas Boy who got power.

He came promising security and stability, and he delivered that the same way Singapore does, with absolutely disproportionate force.

Which brings us to why I based the Good Men on him: they took over after a period of crazy instability.  They promised security.  Their death toll (and his) were less than of explosive regimes like Communists or Nazis.

HOWEVER that’s the overt death toll.  There is the other death toll.  By keeping Portugal locked in a paternalistic regime that kept the economy chugging ever smaller at about a late 19th century level, how many people died of preventable diseases if they’d been better nourished?  (Most of my mom’s generation.  Half of my age group.)  How many people were never well enough to create or invent, or be productive?  How many lives were blighted?

There is no way to tell but I’d guess hundreds of thousands.  More maybe, if you consider the ripples of such things throughout time to the present.

The soft tyranny that promises “security” and “stability” is ALWAYS a death trap.  Which is why I’ve warned crazies on both sides who WANT war and revolution that the end result is usually the Man On The White horse and the sort of soft tyranny that gives you security, stability… and death. Long term, generations-blighting death.

It is that sort of thing that terrifies me because I see the West heading that way at a gallop as a reaction to the communists/socialists and their craziness.

So, the misrepresentation of my ideas upset me a tad.  BUT NOT NEARLY AS MUCH AS IT WORRIED ME.

It worried me first of all because of what it shows on the other side.  They’re so determined to find a protective and fatherly government they can’t conceive of someone disapproving of one form of tyranny without approving of another.  This craziness on the part of nominally educated people will be the death of the west.  It’s an infantile reaction on others to wipe their butts for them, which will lead to their deaths and ours.

And it worried me secondarily because I’ve been d*mn good lately and frankly the Sad Puppies thing is more or less dormant.  However, this week there was the loony Wired article and THIS fascinating obsession on Straw Sarah.

It still shocks me a little that large MSM publications have waded into this with a pre-prepared narrative.  And it worries me more that they’re trying so hard to create Straw Sarah.

I know what it is.  It’s an attempt to silence opposition.

These children (some of them in their seventies) think that if they character-assassinate you, you’ll hide and shut up.  And they think that’s the equivalent of victory.

They don’t realize that even if they succeeded in shutting us all up, we’d not stop resenting them.  In fact, resentment would grow.

They also don’t realize they’re NOT the hard regime who can keep rebellion from happening.  That would have been Roosevelt.  (No, really, study history.)  They’re the soft namby pamby regime who just wants everyone to say as they say and who has panic attacks when we don’t.

And that means their continuous attempts to tamp us down only make us rise up.  And that in the end we win, they lose.

Now if they could stop making sure that they push us towards turmoil and the emergence of a man on a white horse, I’d be ever so grateful.

Whether weaponized pajamas boys or pseudo right wing financiers with bad hairdos, I have no use for Good Men.

Me and mine will seek freedom.  And socialists and communists of all stripes can stop imagining we love one form of socialism and hate the other.

It’s freedom we love, and you would too, if you could grow up enough to comprehend it.

Freedom and a respect for the rights of individuals is messy, nasty and often means people will disagree with you and “trigger” you.  It means your favorite “scientific” government ideas might not carry through, even if they would be in fact better than what carries through.

And it is the philosophy of government that has made humanity for the last century and a half rise above short, brutish and nasty lives.

The choice is never between ice-cream and death.  Grown ups know this, and they treasure the freedom to choose the least of two evils.

229 thoughts on “Good Men

  1. I think the functional definition of Hispanic by the US Government, if they could bring themselves to admit it, is ‘people who abused the shit out of the indigenes in places the British would never dream of going long before the British got to the Americas.’

    1. “Hispanic” is a carve out of the “all Caucasians are evil oppressors” to allow the folks from south of the border to qualify as officially recognized victims. This is why there’s no “Latin” category – that would include the Most Evil Christopher Columbus and that can’t happen.

      You have to remember that the classification scheme’s one and only purpose is the assignment of victimhood.

      1. “South of the border Hispanics” are also part native. Unlike in the British New World colonies, you didn’t have mass migration of Spanish families. It was largely just men, who sired offspring on native women.

    2. I stand corrected, btw. I am Hispanic. According to the census, three tiers down, they list “Gallego/a” — Gallicia is, true, a Spanish province. It is also genetically, culturally and linguistically functionally indistinguishable from the part of the North my ancestors come from. In fact, there is a huge movement to return to Gallician roots in the area, and I found Youtube videos speaking the tongue of my childhood which made me nostalgic and teary eyed.
      Of course Gallician culture and its corruption of the Portuguese language are both Celtic in origin, but the US government says they’re Hispanic, so I’m Hispanic. (Rolls eyes. PFUI)

      1. Classic Hispania includes all of the Iberian Peninsula, after all.

        I’ll bet that every single one of the idiots who are policing your ethnicity with a Goebbels or Klan-like attention to detail is absolutely, 100% insistent that Bruce Jenner is now a woman. Any takers?

        Me, I identify as Cimmerian.

        1. No, Hispania was the Roman name for Spain/Portugal. But the US government is very confused over whether we’re a cultural group (and btw, my husband says the culture is the same… so does a friend married to a Mexican) or a racial group. If racial, well… Spanish/Portuguese are genetically indistinguishable, sleeping with the enemy and all that.
          If linguistic… well… you know Spain and Portugal have more dialects than… well… “Spanish” or standard Portuguese are just the “official language.” So it makes their heads hurt, and they sometimes include Portuguese, sometimes not, depending on whatever.
          Personally I don’t care. I’m American. But it’s VITAL to the left…

          1. “Palestina” (actually, “Philestina” but idiots misread maps) was the name Rome hung on Judea after the Diaspora.

            Why are “Progressives” so avid to re-impose Roman nomenclature?

              1. And even THEY, on their coins, put “Palestine” in English/Latin script, “Falastin” in Arabic script, but ERETZ YISRAEL (“the Land of Israel”) in Hebrew script.
                I have older colleagues who remember when “Palestinian” used to mean “a subject of the British Mandate” regardless of ethnicity. The use of “Palestinian” as an indication for the Arabs of Eretz Israel started in the 1960s for purely propagandistic reasons.

          2. There is something very “postmodern” about this whole business. The word means what they say it means. “Which is to be master — that is all”, as Lewis Carroll would put it.

          3. “I’m American”

            Thank you, Ma’am.

            Speaking only for myself, I get so sick and tried of these hyphenated Americans, that it is a pleasure to see someone simply say “I am American”

            1. I believe the Constitution specifically states that the United States is not obligated to respect the rights of nor accord privileges to, any culture which does not produce a drinkable distilled liquor.

  2. And that means their continuous attempts to tamp us down only make us rise up. And that in the end we win, they lose.

    I think the mushy watermelons on the other side think the battle is for incorrect voiced views – if they can just drown out the voices that don’t agree with the ones in their heads, then everything will be peachy*.

    The hardshell watermelons are the ones attacking the academy, in order to obliterate incorrect thought. The probelm there is taht the interwebs have moved their goalposts just as they were ready to spike the ball, and now the ground they fought for and won has become unpivotal and likely worthless.

    And then comes Sarah’s point I quoted – the more they tighten their grip, the more people slip through their fingers. In spite of their fantasies, Americans do not react well to being told what to do, and often do the opposite just out of general principle. The more they tell everyone what to say and think, the more that will not happen.

    * I think two fruit in one metaphor violates some rule somewhere, but hey, I’m a rebel.

          1. A couple of nights ago, we gave our toddler some pineapple as a part of her dinner, and she ended up having a miserable night (making our night miserable as well) because she had a canker sore that the pineapple aggravated.

            So, my reaction to “I’m a pineapple. All prickly on the outside….” is to finish it with “and acidic on the inside.”

            A sweet acid, mind you, but an acid nonetheless…

            (Yeah, it’s probably best not to carry metaphors too far…)

  3. Obviously, Sarah’s Good Men are Republicans. [Very Very Big Sarcastic Grin]

  4. So….you’re not voting for Bernie Sanders,then?
    But he’s mounted on such a beautiful white horse, and he’s got a big bag of free candy to pass out, an’ he’s going to end Islamophobia and stuff an’ he’s a RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL MINORITY TOO so a vote for him means I ain’t a racist and stuff!
    I can has virtue signaling! Don’t you want can has virtue signaling too?

    1. Yes, he’s mounted on a beautiful white horse, but he’s facing the wrong way, to remind him of his peers in the Senate.

      Explains why he keeps missing the windmills.

    2. Plus, Bernie’s a Socialist, but not one of those International ones.

      You know, a National Socialist.

      No worries there.

    3. My left-wing brother is a Sanders supporter. We ended up yelling at each other over politics two weeks ago.

      1. Debating a Sanders supporter is like debating a cat, except a cat can be taught to use a litter box.

        Conservatives don’t really have a tool kit for debating Sanders supporters — the undeniable fact that his preferred policies will at best not work and will more likely exacerbate problems just doesn’t matter to them.

    4. Given that Bernie Sanders can’t stand up to two young women hijacking his stage, I have a lot of problem seeing him as a President effective either for good or evil. Say what you like about Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao — they were at least brave. If you want to be an Evil Overlord, you need more guts than Bernie Sanders has.

  5. “kind of like Canada’s reason for existence is “We’re not American, eh!”

    Hey! I politely resent that implication! Our main reason for existence is hockey, maple syrup, and beavers.

          1. Nooooo! Timmy’s is now Burger King? It was one of the few places I could get a decent cup of coffee the couple of years I lived in Waterloo (the doughnuts weren’t half-bad either)

    1. I’m an American, and I’m all for beavers. And maple syrup. Thought not in conjunction. 😉

          1. Fool, don’t you realize? Syrup is the blood of trees! All who partake of it are destined to become … Tree Vampires!

            1. Well, yes, but we’ve been trying to turn over a new leaf.

              I know, I know, only a real son of a birch would make that kind of joke. I guess I’d better spruce up my act and cedar the field before people start pining for the good ol’ days.

    2. Of course, if you’re a Newfoundlander or a Quebequois, then you’re one of those first, and only secondly (and often begrudgingly) a Canadian.

          1. plus their such big goofy dogs. And since there is a bit of French Canadian in my background. and French for that matter, and I can’t help holding that against them. (~_^)

    3. Don’t forget backbacon, eh. And reruns of Great White North, and compilation albums for Rush.

      Personally, I like Celine Dion and Nickelback as well, but I am reliably informed that this opinion is not widely shared, so in the spirit of apologizing for the trodden toe even if ’twas unintentional, sorry about that.

      1. Well, there are two types.

        Leftists of the well-meaning idiot variety are indeed brutally ignorant of history. How could they not be? If they weren’t, they’d know that all their wonderful “progressive” ideas have been tried before, and have never resulted in anything but a gigantic pile of corpses. They’re always shocked when the train for the Big Rock Candy Mountain makes an unscheduled stop at the gulag.

        Leftists of the “cynical sociopath” variety see the gigantic pile of corpses thing as a feature.

          1. Feel free… I don’t think it’s a particularly original observation with me, though. 🙂

            I went over to File 770 earlier… still shaking my head at the person in the comments who thinks Jamaicans are “Latin”. Yes, that’s right. 90%+ African descent, essentially Anglophone in both language and culture. “Latin”.

            What little “Latin” culture existed in Jamaica before the British kicked Spain the hell out of there was mostly Sephardic Jews who were pretending to be Portuguese. You can, as they say, look it up.

            1. Thanks. I’m dealing with a challenge because the textbook leans Social Democrat and I don’t want to screw the students up by saying “ignore the book and just listen to me”but I do want to make it abundantly clear that Marx was wrong and that Socialism morphs into Communism into the Gulag faster than the werwolves shift shape in Twilight.

                1. Yup. Read it. Library at Redquarters, bookshelf by the door, lowest shelf, back row, end by the door. Next to Schama’s book about nature and culture (the perceptions of).

                  1. Probably outside the curriculum, but dropping mention of Koestler’s Darkness at Noon or even Orwell’s Animal Farm might open a few eyes.

                    If you’re allowed a movie, I hear Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) is pretty enlightening. From IMDb:

                    In 1984 East Berlin, an agent of the secret police, conducting surveillance on a writer and his lover, finds himself becoming increasingly absorbed by their lives.

                    Or, heck, ask them what the Romans meant when they asked “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

              1. Our 7th Grade Geography/Social Studies text was an abomination called The Ways of Man. When we came to the section on the Soviet Union, which portrayed it as the greatest thing since slice bread, our teacher informed us “This is propaganda.” Then we spent that week learning about Communism, the Russian Revolution, and oppression behind the Iron Curtain. I don’t know where she found some of the films, but we had Tortured for Christ. It can be done. And perhaps the best lesson we took away from that was that text books are not above including outright propaganda.

                It can be done. Let’s see . . . there was the first revolution, then the Communist takeover, then Stalin’s trick where opponents were drowned out by applause – drawing a blank on the difference between Stalin and Trotsky, except Trotsky had a pickax applied to his head. Can’t recall who was tossed out the window.

                If you really feel subversive, look for a free e-book called Red Primer for Children and Diplomats. It’s a primer about communism illustrated with political cartoons.

                1. Perhaps offer extra credit for explaining what Ted Cruz meant when he said during the Democratic candidates fielded “questions like who is more handsome. It was basically Bolshevik vs. Menshevik,”

                    1. Not getting the reference isn’t a big deal. History is big and Menshevik is obscure (no thanks to history teachers who want to hide communism’s ugly details.) The ought-to-be-hideously-embarrassing thing is sending out the tweat without looking up the blasted reference. That smacks of an assumption that anything I don’t know is unimportant.

                    2. First come I. My name is Jowett.
                      There’s no knowledge but I know it.
                      I am Master of this College,
                      What I don’t know isn’t knowledge.

                      – H. C. Beeching, “Masque of B-ll–l”

                      Whom the gods would destroy they first make full of themselves.

                    1. He’s not a mussel, he’s an oyster. Keep your shellfish straight. It is mammalism to think they all look the same.

                    2. If the Oyster has the brain of a Mussel, it’s in a jar next to the heart of a lion and the skilled hands of a surgeon.

        1. They’re always shocked when the train for the Big Rock Candy Mountain makes an unscheduled stop at the gulag.

          The former can be identified by their universal complaint, heard as they are being herded off the trains: “No! Wait! There’s been some mistake!”

          Yeah, no.

            1. Don’t know whether or not Robespierre ever said it. But Solzhenitsyn noted that it passed through the lips of an awful lot of Soviets.

    1. The Ministry of Truth sees to that. There are those who maintain the the ratchet of history moves only one way. I point out Prohibition, segregation, and involuntary eugenic sterilization as wonders that the leftists brought us but are no more — but the Ministry of Truth elides them.

  6. “…the more they tighten their grip, the more people slip through their fingers…”
    When I was active in a local Tea Party (doing media relations, of all things — ’cause I’m a writer, right? And had a background in radio and TV and all those media things?) one of the people I would up meeting several times was Joe the Plumber … remember him? Actually had the brass to ask an impertinent question of King O. the First, and got himself doxxed as a result. Impressive guy, and a good speaker, and supremely p’o’ed over how he had been treated for, you know, asking questions.
    What our dear little Social Justice Whiners are not realizing is how much they are pissing off people who wouldn’t have really cared otherwise – when they misrepresent, dox, attempt to shame and humiliate and outright lie about.
    The more they tighten the grip…

    1. My hope is for a sufficient number of the pissed to bring about adequate cultural shift before pissed moves into righteous anger.

      Righteous anger would be — very bloody.

    2. Working on a theory: Joe the Plumber is self-employed, right? Until roughly a century ago, most Americans were self-employed in some fashion, typically through farming. P.T. Barnham wrote about a barker he saw at a London sideshow, and he offered to hire him and gave him some advice: Save your money and start your own sideshow in the US, which he did.

      Here’s the theory: When you’re self-employed, you know you’re limited by your own efforts. When you’re working for hire, you’re limited by what you can find. Both foster different mindsets. With the self-employed, it’s what you can make for yourself. With work for hire, you’re limited by what an employer is willing to provide for your labor. It’s not the exact thing as wanting someone to take care of your, but pretty close. So the rise in Socialist thought in the US is linked to the decline in self-employment.

      Why I wonder if this is the case: When someone is touts socialist rhetoric without realizing it, asking if they want it applied to them gets interesting reaction. Invariably they see this as applied to employers, and since they’re not self-employed, they do not realize it would have an impact on themselves.

      Disclosure: I’m work for hire; did so with the understanding there’s the trade-off of open-ended wage potential for greater security and benefits.

      1. Employers are the major consumers of capital investment, thus Capitalists (i.e., a poorly identified class upon which anger and resentment may be focused.)

        Employment (not the self- kind, which can cause warts, hairy palms and blindness) establishes the conditions necessary for development of unions, a faceless, soulless organization to stand between you and the faceless, soulless organizations comprising industry and government.

  7. Death before chocolate! Death before ice cream! Death before conceding to evil!

      1. Because we’re wondering if you’re the reason all the Halloween leftovers vanished. All 22 bags of them, and I’m not talking about the el cheapo blend with Sweet-Tarts and malted milk balls, either.

          1. I have many witnesses that say I was else were.
            you do realize how many witnesses will come forward for that much candy.

        1. Our Commissary had that with Butterfingers and Chocolate Crunch Bars.


          Good thing, too, because we were ten minutes late to the mall and 90% of the places were out of candy. (Kids got to play in the play area, making it the Best Halloween Ever.)

        2. Hey, some of us *like* the malted milk balls and Sweet-Tarts!

          But bottlecaps are better!


    1. I don’t eat milk chocolate or real ice cream.

      I have problems with stuff in certain foods, and do not eat them. Usually I’m very careful. There have been times where I’ve taken excessive risks with potentially contaminated food. I’ve regretted many of these. I have yet to knowingly eat anything that I /knew/ would cause those particular problems. It is possible I would choose to starve first. I may be able to sincerely say ‘death before’ for those substances.

      Is someone who offers the false choice of ‘death or candy’ honest and good? Or are they an evil deceiver trying to force the decision?

  8. I begin to think freedom is something the Left cannot appreciate — i.e., that Leftists lack the mental capacity to grasp freedom, whether conceptually of in practice. But whether or not they can comprehend it, it is certain that they dislike it…and us, for advocating it.

    Perhaps the proper treatment of Leftists is as mentally handicapped persons who have somehow evaded their minders. Given their attitude of intellectual and moral superiority, it makes a striking irony.

    1. Oh, they understand it. It just terrifies them.

      The price of freedom is always and everywhere that the other guy gets to be free too. And they’re terrified of what the other guy might do.

      He might say Wrongthing, or read Wrongbook, or have Wrongfun! God help us, he might drink Wrongsizesoda!

      1. Or worse, eh would to do them what they imagine doing to him. When instead he’d just as soon they stayed in their own yard and didn’t get underfoot so much. Shoveling their own sidewalk on occasion would be nice, too.

      2. You got to look at it from the position that the Left wants to be the new aristocracy. Thus, as aristocrats, the Left has rights and privileges that we, the serfs, shouldn’t have.

      3. The essential freedom is the freedom to starve. All the others depend on that one. The left is terrified that they would be starving.

        1. They have good reason for their terror.

          They are dogs, depending on their masters’ table scraps.

          Tiny yappy dogs.

          That aren’t housebroken.

      4. I think it’s more that they’re terrified of having to make a decision and perhaps *gasp* suffer consequences, so they project this onto everyone else.

  9. When the choice is death or ice cream, always ask yourself if it’s really death… and what flavor ice cream.

  10. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    The more I hear about tyrannies the less tolerance I have for the usual excuses. People, if you want to be prosperous, to have your own lives you have to stop listening to the soft spoken words promising safety, stability and security and learn ot embrace the chaos, because either you embrace the chaos or the chaos comes back and eats you.

  11. I never trust people who say they want to take care of me. Only children and mobsters get taken care of. And that really seems to be the way they’re using “taken care of”.

  12. They’re the soft namby pamby regime who just wants everyone to say as they say and who has panic attacks when we don’t.

    These people do not know hard. They do not even know difficult. For them, deprivation is the WiFi going out for ten minutes. They are coddled by administrators eager to abuse power and looking for excuses.

    They cannot understand that the real “hard” people in America are prone to be kind, to be protective and generally find it easier to indulge the kiddies than instruct them in the realities of the world.

    When they talk about “hard times a gonna come” they think they’re calling on Bruce Banner. What they will find is the Hulk.

    (This has been a comment for comments. No opinions expressed herein should be attributed to the signatory of this comment. No pixels were abused in the posting of this comment.)

      1. No abuse. A few of ours might have been lost. Or abandoned in hostile screens. At this point, what difference does it make?

    1. They want to be our new aristocrats. But, they’re not willing to pick up the sword and do the hard work needed to win lands and titles.

  13. You and Dan are among the vanishingly few people I will gladly stay up past midnight to talk to. We were only getting warmed up, and some of those threads are worth picking up at a later date. (It worked out OK; Carol and I slept until 9.)

    I make sense of the left (to what little extent the left can be made sense of) by looking at it through the lens of preverbal tribalism. They are The Tribe, the People, and everyone else (which includes, I’m guessing, all of us here) are the Other, and considered subhuman.They would kill us if they could, but lacking the power to do that, they will settle for slandering us, causing us trouble, posting nasty memes about us, and doing all of that ancient monkeyshit tossing that we engaged in back when we were monkeys. (Ok, apes, I know.) None of this is the result of conscious thought. It’s all very deeply felt feelz, again, ancient and preverbal. Low-status tribal followers will do whatever their tribal alphas tell them to, without thinking, because Tribe. It’s a nasty, dangerous business. It only works as well as it does here and today because the left completely controls the mainstream media.

    What the Quest for Straw Sarah tells me is that you’re becoming a Power. Worse, you’re a Power whose very existence insults the Narrative. This is making SFF’s tribalists utterly nuts. Persevere. I wish I could say it’s a passing thing. I don’t think it is.

      1. They came up with Straw Sarah by emptying their heads, didn’t they?

        Nothing remaining but the sacking.

  14. The choice is never between ice-cream and death. Grown ups know this, and they treasure the freedom to choose the least of two evils.

    Of course, everyone knows that the choice is between cake and death!

    1. Because, as everyone knows, Dead Men Don’t Eat Cake, so according to the Finite Cake theory of economics, hey, after the executions, more cake for the rest, right?

      This competes with the Inifinite Cake theory, referred to alternately the “Get Your Own Damn Cake” theory, which while lacking a Cake Authority to make sure everyone gets the same amount of icing decorations, allows for as much cake as individuals choose to create.

      This latter, most attractive to adults who can thus decide how much cake they will work to create, is infinitely frightening to the little souls sitting at the table waiting to be served, no matter the ages of tehir bodies.

        1. I’m considering a Collins Street apricot pecan cake for Thanksgiving. Save the pumpkin stuff for later. (The token of a student’s esteem in the form of home-made pumpkin-ginger bread on my counter notwithstanding.)

    2. “Of course, everyone knows that the choice is between cake and death!”

      The Cake Is A Lie!!!!!

        1. Well, as a proponent of the Infinite Cake theory, I take a look in the fridge and tell you to put whatever you want on the shopping list, but for today the only option is fruit.
          Could we get Fluffy to watch the flames around the shopping list, do you think? It’s hard to make out the singed parts . . .

      1. Some philosophies believe that Death, too, is a lie* … except for those who opt for Cake.

        *More specifically, a temporary and correctable condition useful for the proper cleansing of the spirit.

      1. Few people know of the typo in that famous phrase, which should have been “The cake is a pie.”

        1. This only applies to round cakes. Sheet cake, which assume square or rectangular form (except when cut and reformed by vandals artistes) can never be a value of pi.

    3. “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

      – Woody Allen

  15. For those like the other side not fully up on history, unlike Spain Portugal sat WWII out.

    Well, Spain didn’t declare war, but everyone knew Franco was very grateful to his fellow dictator for helping him win the civil war. So you must mean that Portugal was actually neutral. (With the US being the opposite example from September 1, 1939 to December 7, 1941.)

    1. There was more to it. Spain sent supplies to the Axis. Portugal sent them to both sides. And wrote on the trains “leftovers from portugal” Mom remembers starving, sitting by the rail line watching the trains pass with that written on them.

      1. Wow, my mom just talks about letters from her brothers telling of burying sugar to keep black marketeers from it and how mad that made her mom (and smashing all the Japanese knick-knacks when she found out about her brother being wounded on Luzon).

    2. Yet Franco annoyed Hitler by not trying to take Gibraltar.

      There’s plenty of evidence that Franco had little respect for Hitler but Spain wasn’t in any shape to get involved on either side during WW2.

      While Franco may have been neutral while leaning toward Germany, you have to remember that Spain suffered great loses in its Civil War and Germany had defeated France easily.

      In that situation would you have wanted to be an open enemy of Germany?

      Britain had the English Channel between them and Hitler.

      What did Spain have between them and Hitler?

      1. Franco also let some of his troublemakers go join the German army. They formed the Azul division. Germany got troops, and Franco had fewer rabble rousers to deal with.

        1. Yep, those were often the people who he had to “step on” when fighting the Communists in Spain.

          The “Republic” forces often purged their own allies.

          He prevented anything similar happening among his forces.

          He wasn’t a nice guy but he was far from being the monster that Hitler and Stalin were.

          Personally, I think he deserves credit for how he avoided problems resulting from his death.

          He arranged for a peaceful transfer of power when he passed away.

          1. The “Republic” forces often purged their own allies.

            The Democrats are always pushing conservatives to do the same.

      2. IIRC, in addition to declining to attack Gibraltar with Spanish troops, Franco also politely declined to approve passage for German troops across Spain to attack Gibraltar.

        From Spanish friends stories, Spain under Franco was certainly no picnic, with a very healthy secret police up through his death, but during WWII it was also concentration camp-free, and, even though they did draw up and hand over to the Nazis lists of Spanish Jews*, they did not deport any of those (very) few Spanish Jews to the Germans tender mercies, in contrast to what Vichy (unoccupied) France and Fascist Italy did.

        Spain was on the “friendly powers” list with the Nazis, so they had open SS folks in the Nazi diplomatic corps travelling freely in Spain and writing up reports for Berlin, and they wanted to cover all their bets without diving in as a member of the Axis. I’m sure there were Nazi-sympathizers as well as Allied-sympathizers within the wartime Franco government, but there was no higher level jump to either direction, with the official policy of sitting on the fence and waiting out the war very much echoing with what the Swedes or the Swiss did in practice.

        *Interestingly those lists omitted naming the much more numerous Jewish refugees from France and other European countries that had made it to Spain.

        1. …concentration camp-free…

          To be clear, Franco had his own prisons and political camps – my point is he had no extermination camps set up as branch campuses of the ones the Nazis were running across Germany and points eastward.

      3. There’s plenty of evidence that Franco had little respect for Hitler

        And with good reason. The one time they met face to face, Hitler, the former corporal, gave a lecture on military affairs to Franco, who had at one time been the youngest general in Europe. Hitler tried to convince Franco that the war was as good as won and that Britain was bound to surrender at any moment. Franco tore his argument to ribbons. Hitler asked Franco to bring Spain into the war on the Axis side. Franco said, why, certainly he would be willing to do that – if Germany sent him the necessary supplies to bring the Spanish Army up to fighting trim after its heavy losses of materiel in the civil war. Franco’s shopping list was outrageous; if Hitler had met his demands, it would have crippled Germany’s own war effort. (Franco knew this perfectly well, and was determined to stay out of the war, while not angering Hitler with a flat refusal.)

        After the interview was over, Hitler said he would rather have three or four teeth pulled than go through that again.

        1. He also took the position that Spain had solved its Jewish Problem in 1492. And could not be budged from it.

          Spain was the route of escape for a good number of Jews.

  16. For years I fought to have me — and the kids — listed as Human, but they wouldn’t accept that. (Possibly because older son looks like a Neanderthal.)

    @#$# sub-species-ists.

  17. BUT what relationship straw Sarah has with me, is quite beyond my ken.

    Every time I see people using straw personas to attack someone, I think of this scene:

    Hmm. Maybe you should be creeped out at Vile770. O_o;;

  18. Read the thread at Vile770. Much mental malfunctioning, lots and lots of whistling past the graveyard where Noah Ward lies buried.

    Hugos 2016, we make ’em do it again. Oh hell yes.

  19. I mean, I think the French Revolution was an insane waste of life, resources and minds, and scary as hell, and led to Napoleon (more on that later) but must it follow I approved of the ancien regime, which was dictatorial and crazy and capricious, as well as economically outdated and harmful?

    I’ve been listening to an excellent podcast on the French revolution lately. It is an absolutely tragic period in history. The French were already on their way to getting every sane change that they wanted in their 1791 constitution, when the authors of that constitution were manipulated out of power by Robespierre and his gang.

    What happens next is pretty much the archetype of leftist revolution: It was a paranoid, backstabbing murder festival. High flying principals were loudly proclaimed, and complete lies: While talking about liberation, they pressed people into service. While talking about freedom of the press, they executed booksellers and printers. While talking about liberty, they instituted secret police and tribunals with absolute power.

    The national heroes of France, like Lafeyette or general Dumouriez were either driven into exile, defection, or murdered as ‘enemies of the people’. The capitol carved up the provinces as spoils for political cronies, and crushed the domestic rebellion with the Reign of Terror, in reaction to the provinces getting sick of Paris making their lives and livelihoods impossible, and pressing the “dumb ignorant provincials” into slavery with a draft to go fight a war against every power in Europe, which they wanted no part in.

    It’s an awe inspiring disaster, from start to finish, top to bottom.

    1. And then Napoleon took the statist, French-supremacy bits and tried to impose them on all of Europe, with predictably bad results for the next, oh, 150 years.

      1. Not exactly…

        He did try to set up a new European order, and created some new countries (Poland, for instance). But he was more or less willing to leave the great powers (Austria and Russia) to manage their own affairs, so long as they didn’t trade with his perpetual enemy, Great Britain. Russia’s economy was facing collapse in 1812, so it started up trade with the isles again, prompting Napoleon’s disasterous invasion.

        1. It’s a pretty wierd claim, that Napoleon created Poland as a new country. Poland traces its history back to the eleventh century; for a time it (in union with Lithuania) was the largest state in Europe.

          It had been carved up between Austria, Russia, and Prussia in the late eighteenth century, so when Napoleon *restored* it, it had been non-existent for less than a generation.

    2. We see the same thing happening, arguably more disastrously, with Tsar Nicholas’ efforts to liberalize his country.

      Near absolute power poses the same problem as that faced by a man who has hold of a tiger’s tail.

      It is a main reason the American system was designed to prevent unopposed authority.

      1. Russia had an odd history of reforms. One tsar would institute reforms, and then the radicals would claim the changes weren’t coming fast enough, and go nuts. Then either the tsar or his successor would roll back the reforms in order to crack down on the troublemakers.

        1. The first part seems a bit like the USA. Radicals demand changes, they get much or even all of what they say they want, then they start in on the next set of demands. Sadly, we don’t have anybody rolling back the stupid changes very often, and our current would-be czar seems intent on trying to make even more of them.

          1. The radicals haven’t taken to assassinating the reformers yet. Remember that bit I mentioned above about a “successor” rolling back the reforms…?

            1. yes and no … while it is not wide spread, have you heard of the term: SWATTING. plus the lefties are not above using the courts to silence / imprison those that do not agree with them.

              1. Afaik, no one’s died from a SWATting… yet. It’s just been embarassment.

                And even if someone were to die as a result of a SWATting, it would be viewed as a “malicious prank gone wrong”, and not the same as bombing the Tsar’s horse carriage while he was in it (see Tsar Alexander II, death of).

                1. Well, that and the destruction of property and getting manhandled by the cops. I’m pretty sure the vileprogs will keep trying until they get it right.

                2. Other than the ones where it’s being streamed live, how would we know? It’d just be a fatal police raid.

                  That case where the small-town sheriff got shot by a guy who voted for him, and only survived because the county guys he called in for backup forced him to wear a vest, only hit the news because some idiot thought he could make the victim out as a crazy survivalist. (Because he’s part of that zombie fad.)

        2. Nicky was a nice guy who tried to rule as an autocrat, and missed both targets.
          The Czarina’s German background, withdraw from society, and public adoration of Rasputin didn’t help matters.
          Had it not been for WWI, they may have been able to muddle through in the traditional Russian manner. Total wars tend to destroy empires.

    3. The French were already on their way to getting every sane change that they wanted in their 1791 constitution, when the authors of that constitution were manipulated out of power by Robespierre and his gang.

      Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were essentially liberals by Ancien Regime standards. Louis XVI was the one who summoned the Assembly, in the hopes that it would both provide the tax money France needed to get out of its debt hole and reform the national laws. Poor King. He should have stuck to his clockwork. France could have used a good old-fashioned tyrant King instead at that historical moment.

    1. That’s terrible! I knew a guy who had a hernia in Nashville, TN and he said it hurt like the dickens.

      Think it’s time to re-watch Die Hard II.

  20. “BUT what relationship straw Sarah has with me, is quite beyond my ken.”

    Clearly, she is your eviller twin. Also, the difference between Mormon and Muslim is (hmm, disregard the exponent and the opponent, carry the three…) four (4) letters and some prior predilection for multiple wives. No, sorry, that last is a similarity, but Straw Sarah can’t HAVE multiple wives, because she’s not a lesbian (otherwise, they’d HAVE to LIKE her). Lesbians CAN’T be evil.

    Off-topic, but I just ran across two (2) books by William Shakespeare: STAR WARS; Verily, A New Hope; and STAR WARS, Part The Fifth, The Empire Striketh Back. (

    1. Back up and run over them again. This is a trend which must be quashed without delay.

      N.B., lesbians who are Republicans can indeed be evil.

      1. I, for one, being one, and one alone (except for the other mes, of whom we will not speak–typing is OK by us, though), am so far greatly amused by these.

    2. RES is right, See Chaney the daughter. And we, of course, are homophobic misogynists because we’d likely be very happy if she were our President

        1. The Progressives would claim she was a misogynistic, homophobic, racist engaged in a war on women and determined to oppress minorities. Just like they’ll claim for all conservative and most libertarians, regardless of said individual’s race, gender, or orientation. This is because many Progressives perceive Progressive policies as good, and opponents of said policies as by definition evil.

        2. What have you got against Tammy Bruce? She’s a Lesbian Republican and an ally. She’s pro-Gun and anti-Marxist. despite living in CA..

        3. Especially with that last name. During the last presidential election, I said for maximum headsplosions we needed a Chaney/Chaney ticket and didn’t care which ran for pres

    3. I can recommend the original trilogy books. Doescher tried again with the prequels but the story is too dependent.

  21. Ew…

    The idea of straw people just sent me to a rather gruesome place. Did any of you see the last episode of ‘Almost Human’?


  22. >>Also because Salazar was raised by Jesuits, the >>country was aggressively, firmly Catholic.
    Non sequitor! Everyone knows Jesuits are not really Catholic…

      1. Besides, the current Pope is a Jesuit!

        (Hastily checks Evidence and Argument rules regarding admissions against interest.)

          1. My understanding is that the exact requirements are baptized and male. I’ve thought it would be amusing to have a Southern Baptist pope.

            1. I thought there were some in the middle ages where they waived the “male” part as well? 🙂 Sara, do you have any thoughts on what Instapundit has mentioned a few times about a resurgence of militant Christianity?


              PS: I know that I have been going back to my religion (Cradle Catholic) more in recent years. I also had more respect for Jesuits until they made on a pope. At least the Jesuits *I* knew the first things they would have tried would have been Female priests and Married priests.

              1. You may be thinking Pope Joan and there’s no evidence she existed.

                IIRC most historians doubt that she existed.

                Note, stories about her started centuries after she was said to have existed.

                1. Beat me to it. 😀 Following in the honorable footsteps of David Blonde, BTW– a Protestant living in the Netherlands who effectively used the early tools of historical study to dismantle the myth of Pope Joan. Tracking the history of the popes during that period and the lack of any contemporary mention of Joan in what would have been, if true, an astounding event to be exploited by papal enemies, he dismissed the legend.

                  It was originally recorded by Catholics, but back in the time when history was a lot more like folk-history.

          2. From what I have been hearing from Catholics, this one is definately not. Even if he had been what he did to become pope would have had him excomunicated.

Comments are closed.